Have you ever been asked in an interview, “How would you implement a change initiative?” It’s as if implementing a new program or changing a policy can be executed by following a recipe. I’m willing to bet that if you view each change initiative as an independent event with a series of steps, chances are your implementation efforts have been met with fear and resistance, if not outright mutiny. The problem is a matter of perspective. Organizational resiliency and the degree to which change initiatives are embraced are driven not by the effectiveness of the ‘roll-out strategy’ but by the underlying relationship that the company and its management has with their workforce.

“Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better.”
— King Whitney Jr.

Having a roll-out strategy that starts and stops with each change initiative is counterproductive to the organizational climate. It’s like a series of one night stands instead of a longstanding relationship built on an investment of commitment and trust. Adaptability, resiliency, and trust must be fostered over time. This is why the competence of leadership at all levels is so critical. Developing an organizational culture of alignment, where employees’ values, perspectives, and priorities are ‘aligned’ with the overall strategic direction of the company or team, helps mitigate the shock of any individual change initiative.

Employees within a culturally aligned organization may not agree with every directive or initiative, but they are more likely to trust their leaders and subsequently accept or even embrace decisions that are made, even those that are unpopular. Change is viewed more as an evolutionary process than a series of periodic singular events. When new initiatives are brought forward, team members feel more engaged in the evolutionary process and have a greater comfort level toward any potential impact. Rather than becoming overwhelmed by fear and trepidation at something new, they maintain a rational perspective focused on the immediate opportunities and longer term benefits.

Teams with a strong culture of alignment are far less resistant to change because the idea of change itself is less threatening. Let’s face it, most people dislike being forced to change. There is some level of comfort even in the consistency of misery. Teams that operate within a culture of alignment may never enthusiastically embrace the idea of change, but will accept it as a necessary business reality. These team members trust their leaders and their values are fundamentally aligned with the general vision and mission of the organization.

Developing a culture of alignment in any organization or team requires a considerable investment in time, but it’s not rocket science. Realize, however, that any attempt to alter the culture must be carefully planned and executed. Managers too often function as information conduits. They orchestrate and delegate, hopefully participate, but when new directives are introduced, they simply call a meeting and make an announcement. Cultural transformation requires a little more time and thought than that!

Management consultants and organizational trainers love building models. There is something very appealing about organizing ideas and strategies to implement a particular vision or objective, especially when managing change. Companies constantly look for ways to make training more meaningful, to cultivate environments in which employees are engaged in their jobs and aligned with the vision. Yet, despite all the development models, performance factors, and evolving priorities, employees ultimately just want the answers to three simple questions:

1. Where are we going?2. How are we going to get there?3. What is my role?

Where are we going?

Communicating a clear vision and well-defined objective is essential. Employees need to know what success will look like. The answer to this question should define the goal and paint a picture of the future.

How are we going to get there?

Providing a destination without specific directions for how to get there is just asking for mass confusion and conflicting priorities. Employees need a roadmap – the relevant action steps required to achieve the objective, including the expected timeline and key milestones.

What is my role?

This is, perhaps, the most important question of all. Everyone wants to know what is expected of them, the skills, deliverables and time required, as well as any potential impact to compensation, job security, work-life balance, etc.

Ironically, however, the ability to influence others, either in an organization or in the political arena, ultimately doesn’t depend on an individual’s title or position of authority. In fact, those in positions of “authority” often confuse their ability to inflict their will on others (where authorized by their position or title) as a “right” of leadership. This is frequently the case with new managers and those whose motivation for leadership is based on a desire for authority in the form of personal control and power.

These authoritarian relationships may command respect in a superficial sense, but are void of trust and respect. They are based solely on fear rather than empowerment and personal ownership, and offer no provision for alignment of ideas or ideals. In this self-centric mindset, the emphasis on success is internal. The success of both subordinate individuals and the team is viewed by the manager as being dependent upon his or her personal success. These managers tend to believe that in order to validate their own value to the organization they must make themselves essential to the success of the team.

I see this in teams that are largely dysfunctional when the leader is absent. Decisions cannot be made without the manager’s consent. Personal ownership and accountability is stifled and autonomy is restricted. There is little or no basis of trust in the competence and discretion of the team members. This type of manager hordes power, controls rather than leads, and lacks the self confidence to allow subordinates or the entire team to excel in his absence. They make the success of their team completely dependent upon their presence and participation.

I believe that just the opposite is true of superior leaders – that the true measure of success for a leader is not how necessary he is to the team, but in fact how unnecessary he is. This might sound radical or counter-intuitive, but if a leader has truly done his job, the people who work for him should be able to function autonomously for an extended period of time without the necessity of his direct supervision. They should all be aligned both individually and collectively with the organizational vision and goals. They should each have a strong sense of personal ownership and accountability, both to their leader and to each other. They should exhibit integrity and self-discipline. They should be enthusiastic and self-motivated. And finally, they should have a balanced sense of selflessness (teamwork) and drive for personal achievement. This is the very essence of a high performing team, and the best managers and strongest leaders, in effect, actually make themselves less and less integral as their teams become more and more self-sufficient.

The ability to influence others is a powerful and awesome responsibility. Effective, superior leadership, under which individual and team performance is developed and cultivated to its highest potential, requires uncommon, illusive, and perhaps innate personal qualities. It requires confidence and vision with a strong sense of purpose. It requires courage, discipline, and dedication to the development of others. It requires authority without authoritarianism. Superior leaders nurture cooperation instead of mandating compliance. They build consensus and create a culture of alignment in which every member shares in the ownership and accountability.

The Character of Leadership Competency Model was developed through years of personal experience. It was influenced by the thoughts and ideas from a multitude of sources, and shaped by real world application in my role as a leader, influencer, and developer of people. I believe that the foundation of superior leadership is comprised of 5 essential core attributes – Character, Discipline, Humility, Courage, and Vision.

Naturally, there are also many essential behaviors that leaders must demonstrate. Good communication is most often noted as an obvious example. I certainly agree, however, this model is not intended to be a list of behaviors or habits. It’s far more a reflection of the values and belief system that superior leaders model in their both their personal and professional lives. These attributes represent the broadest measure of a leader’s effectiveness and success.

Character

Trustworthy – Trust is a product of character and integrity, and is the foundation for effective leadership.

Speaks with Authority – Leaders speak not out of arrogance (from a perspective of position or title, i.e., ego), but with unwavering conviction and confidence in their vision (truth).

Integrity Above Reproach – Effective leaders must have credibility. This is built on honesty, steadfast principles and standards. Good leadership is a matter of character, and character is defined by integrity.

Resilient – While having many weaknesses and limitations, leaders must be strong and stalwart.

Empathetic – Essential to compassion, sensitivity, and understanding – leaders must give people room to fail as well as succeed. People need encouragement and reinforcement when they struggle. That’s why we coach.

Discipline

Never Compromises Absolutes – It is one thing to compromise on matters of preference, it is quite another to compromise on matters of principle.

Definite and Decisive – Good leaders must be able to make decisions that are clear-headed, informed, and conclusive. The must also communicate objectives in a way that is articulate and specific.

Knows How to Delegate – You simply cannot, and should not, do everything yourself. A few things demand hands-on attention – delegate the rest. Remember what it is you are working for.

Self-Disciplined – Discipline ensures we operate by principle rather than emotion or personal desire.

Humility

Humble – Good leaders are humble with a willingness to serve others first – employees, customers, and company. Competent leaders do not need to seek the spotlight of recognition. Their success is defined not by being indispensable to the organization, but by leading others to lead themselves. The most effective leader is one who makes his own presence unnecessary.

Knows His Limitations – A leader who forgets his own weaknesses will inevitably fail.

Knows When to Change His Mind – Good leaders are definite and decisive, but not inflexible. They do not perpetuate bad decisions (out of ego) and know when to adapt to changing circumstances.

Admits Mistakes – Character and trust is strengthened when leaders admit and take ownership of mistakes.

Does Not Abuse Authority – Having authority does not mean being authoritative.

Courage

Takes Initiative – Acting in the best interest of others, regardless of position or authority.

Doesn’t Run in Face of Opposition – Good leaders do not abdicate their role when challenged. They are steadfast and firm – demonstrating authority and grace under pressure.

Courageous – People do not follow cowards. Character is tested under fire and leaders must demonstrate courage.

Vision

Strengthens Others – A leader’s purpose is to make everyone around him better – stronger, more effective, more motivated.

Optimistic and Enthusiastic – Optimistic enthusiasm inspires people. Employees will naturally follow a leader who arouses their hopes, and they will just as surely reject anyone who is perpetually pessimistic.

Focuses on Objectives – A leader focuses on objectives, not obstacles.

Joining the ranks of religion and politics, morality has quietly become a minefield to be publicly avoided at all costs. Discussion on the matter, let alone debate, is just not politically correct; someone is sure to be offended. Others might disagree, but I assert that morality, once commonly guided by absolute principles broadly accepted by society, has gradually evolved to a matter of individual preference. I personally believe that matters of preference are subject to compromise, while matters of principle should be firmly upheld. The problems begin when my principles differ from yours. While my intent here is not to impose my ideology, I do want to explore the cultural inconsistencies in the interpretation of right and wrong within our society. To that end, I pose these questions as food for thought and comment:

Should the foundation of morality be based on an absolute – a definitively established set of ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’, or should it be left to the interpretation of individuals or larger society groups? Should these cultural standards be established or affirmed, recognizing that not everyone will be in agreement? Do we let the majority decide, or do we default to the lowest common denominator within our culture – the individual?

I’m using the term ‘lowest common denominator’ in the context of contrasting two ends of the spectrum for judgment over what is and is not acceptable, i.e., morally right. By that I am referring to an accepted societal viewpoint in which the wishes/rights of individuals have priority over those of a larger population. I’m drilling down to the idea of ‘individual rights’ as the lowest level driver of moral authority, assuming ‘rights’ are interpreted in the strictest sense. I’m also using the concept of right and wrong in the same context as morality, since by definition, morality is the principles of right and wrong in behavior.

The fact is, belief and value systems within our culture vary so greatly that there is an enormous gap between what most of us believe as individuals and the reality that exists within our society. Despite what many would assert should be, I don’t think a consensus on ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ truly exists in our culture because we simply cannot agree on the boundaries. Sure, there are certain actions that are almost universally considered taboo, but the waters get murky when you start talking about simpler issues of right or wrong. Subsequently, no one is satisfied. We assess issues and behaviors, etc., based on our personal perspective, recognizing the influence that our experiences, beliefs, and shifting cultural views have on us. Perhaps the most commonly accepted concession is that what is ‘right’ for one person or group may not be so for another.

As a society of like minded people (I’m talking in the broadest sense), we’ve traditionally made sweeping cultural decisions about what is considered right and wrong. In the age of political correctness, those decisions are being challenged by those who believe the ‘one’ is just as important as the ‘many.’ Priority of designated ‘rights’ has shifted away from the absolute and/or cultural majority to individuals and small groups with interests that do not conform to traditional norms. Current cultural pressure dictates that we are no longer supposed to judge right or wrong whenever there is the potential that an individual or group might take offense or in some way be repressed.

Some would argue that morality is and should be a social construct. That concept is indeed at the heart of the questions I’m posing. Since defining morality as a social construct implies that there are culturally established standards of right and wrong, how then should this morality be imposed upon society, when by doing so, it may in fact conflict with the principles and values of those in disagreement?

In a discussion on this subject several years ago, a friend of mine argued that cultures judge right and wrong at will while governments protect the rights of individuals. I don’t entirely agree with this, although I think I understand what he was getting at. Cultures do define and judge right and wrong, however, governments obviously do not always protect individual rights. The legal imposition of morality is in constant flux and the monitoring and protection of affected ‘rights’ depends on a host of social and political factors, all of which vary by culture vis-à-vis country. I would point out that even in the U.S., public perception of certain assumed rights is itself frequently a cultural misconception, based on popular assumption but with no specific legal basis. Simply put, just because we think we deserve something doesn’t mean we’re legally entitled to it, and having a voice doesn’t always equate to having a vote.

That same friend also asserted that “tyranny of the masses precludes justice and fairness” in the application of moral constructs imposed upon broader society. Assuming that’s true, where then is the demarcation between social morality and individual rights? How exactly should fairness be defined? Given the imposition of social/cultural morality on the broader population, exactly how and where is the line drawn when a generally accepted social ‘good’ conflicts with the perceived rights of a smaller group within that population?

My point is our individual concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is founded entirely through our personal perspective, which is a product of our experiences, environment, religious beliefs, and cultural influences. When does the determination of ‘right’ by the majority justify decisions that adversely impact the minority? I think we’d all agree that it sometimes does. Perhaps the bigger question is should it? Is there in fact an absolute truth that supersedes an inconsistent socially constructed morality?

I think our society today frequently confuses its beliefs with its desires, or more accurately, we shape our beliefs to conveniently fit our desires. More to the point, we allow our preferences to shape our principles instead of the other way around. We also confuse our freedoms with rights. As a result, everyone creates his or her own reality. In my reality are my perceptions of right and wrong. There are people who agree with (i.e., share) my perceptions, and people who do not. Consequently, there are multiple social moralities on any given issue.

It’s unfortunate that we’ve been so programmed to embrace everyone else’s opinions and beliefs, we’ve compromised our own principles in the process. I’m not suggesting that anyone should be intolerant or judgmental, but I think the terms are often used as a convenient weapon against those who philosophically disagree. There is nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in, even when it’s not politically or socially correct. In fact, I believe that by adhering to the rules of political correctness under the premise of ‘not offending anyone’, we’ve completely prostituted ourselves to a homogeneous culture where people are persecuted for defending a principle that conflicts with the preference of others. There are many people who are not concerned by that, so maybe I’m being cynical. I just have a hard time accepting that actions and behaviors should be justified based on whether they pass the ‘doesn’t harm anyone’ test. Shouldn’t there be some better criteria for judging the morality of what we think and do?

We live in an age of anarchy – not political anarchy, but social and cultural anarchy. Everyone is encouraged to ‘do their own thing’, whatever that thing may be – and it’s all supposed to be okay so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone or infringe upon anyone else’s rights. It’s an inconsistent premise at best and I don’t buy it. When the boundaries of morality and ethics are deemed malleable and subject to individual interpretation, the concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ becomes driven by convenience and preference, lacking any principled bearing.

Actions, whether by individuals or societies, have repercussions. Our decisions and behaviors, whether in public or in private, slowly shape the world in which we live, and ultimately influence who we are. We create our own cultures, just as we create our own realities. Whether you believe in a single authority or cultural evolution, there are many social moralities. The trouble with that is, none are right, some are right, all are right. It all depends on your perspective.

Have you ever witnessed children running wild in a restaurant or retail store while the parents, apparently oblivious to the chaos, completely disregard the effect this behavior has on everyone else around them? Of course the child’s behavior is not really the issue is it? After all, the actions of children are merely a reflection of the parent’s priorities and values. Unruly, precocious, undisciplined children left to explore the world on their own terms are simply another symptom of a larger socio-cultural trend that inflicts many adults today – a warped sense of entitlement compounded by a general lack of personal responsibility.

As a parent myself, I simply don’t accept the notion of the overwrought mom or dad, out in public trying to enjoy a family meal or finishing up errands with kids that are overly tired or bored. Children and their needs should always be the parents’ first priority, but this is often not the case. The parent’s agenda far too often comes first – the dinner out, the gift to buy, the dress to try on – all the while with kids in tow. I can’t tell you how many times my wife and I have left a cart full of groceries in the store because one of our toddlers was having a melt down, or how many meals one of us finished alone in a restaurant while the other waited in the car with one of our unruly monsters. Our needs, our schedule, our time together – all came second to our kids.

I also don’t accept the parental ‘philosophy’ of untethered social training, in which children are allowed to explore the world around them with minimal restraint or direction, the justification for which is to encourage creativity and individual expression. Seriously, give me a break! I see parents every single day who evidently subscribe to this theory, either by design or through the abdication of their parental responsibility to provide guidance and leadership. Truthfully, I think many parents today are simply too lazy or too consumed with their own personal desires to provide meaningful parental leadership to their own children. Instead of owning up to the tough role of parent, they instead try to be ‘friends’ with their kids. Children need their parents to be role models who hold them accountable for their actions, not ‘friends’ who condone destructive behavior and shield them from the consequences of their actions.

Children are naturally inquisitive, energetic, and reckless. They are also inherently kind, honest, sensitive, and generous. However, they are unfortunately also a product of their environment. Values such as respect for others, self-discipline, and good old fashioned manners must be instilled and practiced, starting at home. A child’s behavior is a direct and unequivocal reflection of the parent’s behavior and values. Children are taught, or perhaps more accurately, allowed to learn and practice disruptive, disrespectful, and inappropriate behavior.

The mere fact that some parents feel that ‘everywhere’ is a training ground for social interaction, as if that somehow defers the parent’s role, neglects one of the core responsibilities that parents have for raising their children. Training for social interaction begins and ends at home and should define the boundaries for what is acceptable when out in public. The “everywhere” argument implies that the world shares responsibility for training children. I disagree.

Many adults, particularly young adults in their 20s and 30s appear to believe that the world about them exists solely for their comfort, convenience, and satisfaction. Perhaps this is the result of a couple of generations of economic prosperity, but this particular demographic seems to feel that they are owed something – abject servility in restaurants and stores, instant gratification and satisfaction, and freedom from personal responsibility and accountability. For the most part, they’ve not experienced serious difficulty in their lifetime – no cold war nuclear threat, no painful economic hardship, and very little in the way of any significant personal sacrifice. They’ve never spent hours in line for gas on odd days of the month, or worried about a mandatory draft. They’ve been too busy enjoying the American dream, getting what they want when they want, and along the way have become morally complacent, materialistic, and hopelessly entitled.

I don’t know for sure exactly how this mindset became part of our culture. Maybe it was instilled by the parents of my own generation. Maybe it was the environment in which this latest generation grew up. Regardless, it is no wonder that so many of today’s children mirror those attitudes. It’s been bred into them. Children today reflect the same sense of entitlement that they see their parents demanding in their own interactions. If a child breaks something, it’s the store’s fault for having it accessible. If the parents can’t “control” them, they excuse the behavior by saying the children are “uncontrollable” rather than accept responsibility for the fact that they are failing their children in this aspect of their development. Parents insist their kids have the “right” to run and play in public, to make as much noise as they want, to learn social interaction everywhere they go and regardless of the consequences for others around them.

So don’t blame the kids running between the tables in the restaurant or rolling on the floor in the retail store; they’re just children who learn from and emulate their parents. It is the parents who are at fault. It is the parents who should be asked to leave when children are behaving in a way that is disrespectful or inappropriate for their immediate environment. Better yet, the parents should exercise good judgment and remove their children without having to be asked.

Social training should only take place in public places that are conducive to age (or maturity) specific interaction. This, of course, depends on the behavioral capacity of the child. Children who have been adequately taught appropriate behavior at home and who demonstrate appropriate behavior when out in public may well be able to handle a more sensitive adult environment. In any case, there should be no carte blanche for public social training. Unfortunately, the burden of discretion falls upon the parents, who themselves too often need remedial social training.

I have a thing for old tools. Not the ones with cords and plugs, mind you, but old hand tools that predate electricity. The ones guided by hand, powered by muscle, carefully honed and meticulously cared for to retain their edge and effectiveness at doing the job for which they were intended. These are elegant, tactile tools of history, character and quality – tools upon which the livelihood of their owner depended. These tools didn’t sit collecting dust on shelves in garages, used casually or occasionally and allowed to rust. These were tools of journeymen and tradesmen, carpenters, cabinetmakers, shipbuilders, and carriage makers – tools that were passed down through multiple generations. Every one has a story to tell; every paint spot, dent, ding, scratch and chip reflects a different point in time and a different job completed.

Sadly, most of these tools eventually fell victim to post-WWII modern industrialization when mass production, cheap technology, and the population explosion shifted consumer culture from quality and durability to speed and ease of use. Today, we’ll spend $200 on a cordless drill and toss it out when the battery no longer holds a charge. All the while, the noble tools of iron, steel, and wood that built this country sit quietly idle, rusting away in barns and workshops and garages. Few know how to use them, fewer still know how to restore them to functional condition, and just about everyone else wonders why bother doing either. I am one of the relative few who does both.

Opinions on the restoration of old tools vary widely and are frequently debated within their communities of interest. I personally believe that less is more when it comes to restoration. I like the idea of retaining a tool’s character – its scars and marks from use, its patina, etc. I believe a tool should be cleaned and maintained in the same manner as the original craftsman who owned it would have done. A hundred years ago, these tools represented the livelihood of the owner. They were relatively expensive and the woodworkers who owned them relied on them to make a living. They would not have allowed rust to accumulate and would have cleaned and oiled them regularly.

Refining people is not unlike the restoration and care of vintage tools. Regardless of age or experience, there are always rough edges to be eased, working mechanisms in need of adjustment, and business implements to be sharpened to produce the desired result. People in an organization require constant tuning and ongoing maintenance in order to function at their peak capacity. Good leaders exist, not simply as masters of the tools they wield. Rather in the manner of fine craftsmen, they are charged with refining, tuning, and honing the tools in their care, through the edification and development of the men and women they lead.

The refinement of these human tools requires a firm but gently touch. In time, their mettle (pun intended) is reflected in a patina developed through experience, accomplishment, and occasional failure. Skills develop through hands on instruction and are shaped by practice. The quality of results improves as the tool is tuned to achieve the task intended. Adjustments are made, impurities cleaned, and accomplishment is rewarded until eventually the tool attains a confidence, character, and integrity all its own. Shavings are gossamer thin, lines are cut straight and true, and revealed in every achievement is the precision of the tool and the influence of its custodian.

Without constant care, tools become dulled by use – corrosion slowly creeps in, alignment is eventually lost, and the ability of the tool to perform as expected is compromised. Just as the journeyman of 100 years ago was personally responsible for the care and maintenance of his tools, so are the business leaders of people today. In a culture where tools are deemed disposable, easily replaced by a trip to the local home center, leaders of people cannot afford to be so cavalier. These human tools represent the livelihood of the organization. They are relatively expensive and the companies that employ them rely on them to sustain and grow the business. They must not be allowed to fall idle and rust.